Ruth Kelly: All children can, and should, benefit from increasingly personalised learning. We have announced a total of £990 million of additional funding by 2007–08 for that purpose. All schools will receive extra funding, but we will target those facing the greatest challenges; schools with pupils from deprived backgrounds or with low prior attainment.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend take particular note of the research by the Institute for Public Policy Research on personalised learning and its effect on social mobility? Yesterday, we celebrated in the House of Commons the second anniversary of the launch of volunteer reading schemes. Both the research and the volunteer reading schemes indicate the importance of training intermediaries, and we must ensure that we have the best qualified people in this country, whether they are volunteers or teachers, to make personalised learning work.

John Hayes: We welcome the bid to stage the world skills championship. However, the Minister knows that, as the leaked report has shown, Britain faces a skills crisis, particularly a language skills crisis. A Secondary Heads Association survey reveals that the number of post-14 pupils studying languages is plummeting and only a fifth of 15-year-olds now study a foreign language. A Government-sponsored report shows that Britain is bottom of the class in Europe for language skills; 28th out of 28 countries. In Olympic terms, the Minister is the Eddie the Eagle of language skills. Given that failure, in what specific ways did the Government take account of language skills when designing the new vocational diplomas?

Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend that, particularly but not exclusively for young children, play is a very important part of the concept of extended activities in schools. Indeed, the prospectus that we published made it clear that we want play to be an important aspect. Children should not just have study support and curriculum-focused activities at the end of the day; we want them to relax and unwind in a secure and stimulating environment. Schools will be talking to parents and children as they plan what is required for their extended activities, and I am sure that parents will want that to happen. Because extended schools activities are about working in partnership with other organisations, and not schools doing it themselves, I am sure that the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries will have a big part to play in ensuring that extended activities can include play.

Beverley Hughes: A significant proportion of the £840 million goes directly to schools, with the remainder going through local authorities. Schools will receive a substantial amount of money directly from the Department to support the development. The money is not for supporting activities in the long-term but for the development of such activities.
	We commissioned research from Manchester university on the impact on schools, and there has been an interim report. One finding is that if the project is managed in the right way, it reduces the burden on teachers. By that I mean that provided that head teachers do not take the view that they have to do everything themselves—we do not want them to take that view—but garner the support and opportunities offered by other organisations in the locality, including voluntary organisations and child-care providers who want to work with them, the impact on schools can be beneficial in releasing teachers for their core job, which is teaching.

Ruth Kelly: Of course, all these questions are kept under review. At the moment, we have a system in which 10 per cent., or thereabouts, of the capital cost of an academy is contributed by a sponsor. However, the important aspect of the academies project is not the financial contribution of the sponsor. It is the time, the energy and the commitment that the sponsor gives to the project that can make such a big difference. Indeed, in taking the trust school programme forward, we are trying to bring the commitment of other external partners to the education of state school pupils in the most disadvantaged schools in our inner cities and most deprived areas, so that they can benefit from that commitment too.

Ruth Kelly: I do not, and there is no evidence whatever that that is happening. That allegation is most frequently made against the Emmanuel schools run by Sir Peter Vardy. Ofsted has inspected those schools on numerous occasions and one of them was yesterday given its third outstanding report. Ofsted has looked specifically at their science curriculum, and at whether creationism was being taught in those schools, and it has concluded that it is not.

David Willetts: May I assure the Secretary of State that, whatever hostility to academies there might be on her side of the House, we strongly support them? One of the many freedoms that academies enjoy is the freedom to employ their own staff. To do that, however, they depend on the Government to give them full information about the staff that they wish to employ. Among the 1,000 foreign convicted criminals released by the Home Office, there were drug dealers, violent offenders and 21 sex offenders, some of whom had been accused of offences against children. Can the Secretary of State assure the academies and all parents that any offenders who should have been placed on list 99 and on the register of sex offenders—[Interruption.]

Sixth Form Colleges

Kelvin Hopkins: If she will encourage the establishment of more sixth form colleges; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: Yes, the recent further education White Paper, "Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances" reaffirmed our commitment to a strong and growing sixth form college sector. The White Paper announced that new sixth form colleges should be considered an option where new 16 to 19 provision is needed locally, including where there is a 16 to 19 competition, and a presumption in favour of proposals from successful colleges wishing to expand to deliver new specialised diplomas. We expect to issue guidance on that in the coming months.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will recall from a parliamentary answer given to me earlier this year that a direct and strong correlation exists between sixth form size and exam success. Sixth form colleges, such as that in my constituency, perform superbly well. It is argued that had sixth form colleges been left with local education authorities, another 100 or more would have been created. Will she intervene directly to ensure that many more sixth form colleges are created to the benefit of thousands of students every year?

Maria Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great interest that he takes in this matter. He is a governor of one of his successful local sixth form colleges, and has always pursued assiduously the interests of sixth form colleges, which can bring diversity to the local provision of education for this age group. He can be assured that we want to support sixth form colleges and their expansion where they are successful as part of a local mix of provision that allows children to go where they will do best, whether that is to local schools, sixth forms or colleges.

Bob Russell: Is not the Minister aware that where there are sixth form colleges alongside selective and other schools with sixth forms, the difference in funding given by the state to sixth form colleges, such as that in Colchester, is disproportionate? No group of schools with sixth forms will voluntarily give up their sixth forms to create a sixth form college unless the local education authority oversees it.

Crispin Blunt: In all the briefings that I have had from Dr. Paul Rispoli, the excellent principal of the successful Reigate college, the issue of differential funding has recurred constantly. I note that the Education and Skills Committee says that
	"it makes no sense that a student undertaking a course at a Further Education college should, other things being equal, be less well funded than a student taking the same course at a local school."
	Is the Minister saying that from now on courses will be equally funded and that her promotion of sixth form options at schools will not be at the expense of colleges, because such schools will be better funded than colleges?

David Kidney: As an alternative to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) in suitable cases, may I commend Stafford's collegiate approach? All secondary schools, one sixth form centre and one further education college have pooled their resources to offer the widest possible choice of courses to sixth form students. Is that not a good way of improving the educational offer to all sixth form students?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend has given a good local example of best practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) could have done the same had he chosen to ask a question about Campus Luton. It is right for areas to be able to organise local provision in the best possible way for them and their young people, and that is what these changes, and the extra support for FE and sixth form colleges, are designed to achieve.

Nick Gibb: At our last Education Question Time, the Minister for Schools said that in future all pupils would be entitled to study two sciences at GCSE level. We welcomed the Chancellor's Budget announcement that in future all pupils who achieved level 6 in science at key stage 3 would be entitled to study the three separate sciences at GCSE. Currently 480,000 students take the double-award GCSE, compared to just 43,000 who take GCSEs in the three separate sciences. Does the Minister agree that all pupils should be given the opportunity to study the three separate sciences? What action will he take to encourage all schools to make them available to all pupils?

Vincent Cable: Do Ministers have memories? Do they not remember that 15 years ago, they campaigned alongside women's institutes against what they described as the mindless philistinism of the then Conservative Government, who sought to introduce the policy that this Government have now adopted: channelling resources much more into narrow vocational skills—which employers are often happy to pay for themselves—and away from the popular, broad-based non-vocational courses greatly favoured by many people, particularly older adult learners?

Tom Levitt: I was pleased to be invited a few weeks ago to the 10th anniversary of the university of the Third Age, in Buxton—a magnificent organisation that is doing very well indeed, and which, of course, is not dependent on Learning and Skills Council funding. Although I do not oppose the principle of refocusing such funding—my hon. Friend has talked about that—the speed of change during the transition period is causing real problems for some organisations other than the U3A that are providing adult non-vocational education. Will my hon. Friend look again at the speed of the transition period?

Beverley Hughes: As I just said, decisions about employing classroom assistants and the way in which they are deployed are matters for local determination, but we are receiving increasing evidence from schools and local authorities that this is an important source of support for teachers, not least as we move towards personalised learning, which schools will have to adopt if they are to maximise the attainment of all children, and in particular, reduce inequalities for low achievers. However, as I have just said, the Training and Development Agency for Schools now has an extended remit and is beginning to undertake a much more systematic survey of evidence on the impact that classroom assistants have on the important agenda of children's levels of attainment.

Michael Fabricant: In a debate last week on the Science and Technology Committee report, we learned that there are some 50 courses on forensic science and some 350 different course combinations. But those include courses such as forensics and music, forensics and drama, and forensics and a foreign language. But apparently those courses do not provide the sort of qualification needed to have a career in forensics. Similarly, a degree in media studies is less likely than a degree in chemistry or history to get someone a job in the BBC. How can we better meet the aspirations of people studying for degrees in achieving the careers that they want?

Bill Rammell: That is the old chestnut about media studies again. In terms of employability, media studies has one of the best track records for degree qualifications. The hon. Gentleman's point about forensic science is an important one, and we need to ensure that students are aware of which qualification will lead to which particular career opportunity. However, I am heartened and encouraged by the fact that applications for the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—have increased in the last year. I refer to the significant increase in chemistry applications mentioned in answer to a previous question.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that full and encouraging reply, but does she watch the programme, "That'll Teach 'Em", which is currently showing on Channel 4? I believe, and certainly many of those who have spoken to me believe, that it provides all the evidence that anyone, even the so-called education experts, can ever want, to prove that strict classroom discipline creates the very best, excellent learning environment to which pupils are fully responding. Will she continue to emphasise the importance of discipline, which is good for education and will lead to improved qualifications to enable people to do well in later life?

Mike O'Brien: I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and it is indeed a very serious, difficult and regrettable one. It is a fact that the average sentence for rape convictions is seven and a half years' imprisonment. Many offenders receive substantially more than that for the most serious offences. It is important that we get the balance right in dealing with these cases and ensure that people who are a danger to the public are properly dealt with. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now ensuring that a proper risk assessment is carried out of persons who have committed offences so that we can assess the risk to the public over the long term and deal with it appropriately.

Mike O'Brien: Although the Treasury Solicitors administer bona vacantia, the policy in relation to it is a matter for the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The current arrangements for making discretionary payments are flexible and, by and large, seem to work relatively well. They were recently revised and updated, and are kept under constant review to make sure that they reflect changes in society and enable people to get what they are entitled to more easily. Of the 488 cases, 238 involved people claiming estates to which they were legally entitled, after the Treasury Solicitor had administered them. The decisions were not entirely discretionary. The rules are rather old, but by and large they work, because they have been updated over time.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Lady has some interesting definitions of what she means by job cuts. [Interruption.] I know that it has become fashionable for Conservative Members to identify particular areas of the country where restructuring and modernisation has taken place, and then to extrapolate a general picture from those isolated examples. It is for them to check carefully exactly what they mean by job cuts, not least in relation to nurses. [Interruption.]

Geoff Hoon: The simple facts are that 85,000 more nurses are now working in the United Kingdom than there were in 1997; we now have 404,161 nurses at work; and we have 307,000 more staff in the national health service than we had in 1997, including 215,000 more front-line staff. On whatever definition anyone uses, those are not job cuts. They may be things that Conservative Members want to use in debate, but the plain fact of the matter is that more and more people are working in our national health service, and they are delivering more and more treatment, more and more operations, ever-better standards of health care, and ever-lower waiting lists. Those are the facts.
	Perhaps the right hon. Lady has not had time to read the pages of The Times this morning, but she will see in it a letter in which it is said:
	"The NHS will need to respond to the tide of rising expectations and need by improving efficiency and responsiveness. With the dedication and commitment of staff we believe that the NHS can continue its transformation and be a model for other countries."
	That letter is signed by, among others, Beverly Malone, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and the chairman of the British Medical Association, together with representatives of unions and charities that work in the NHS. We are doing exactly what is set out by those people with real experience of a national health service.
	On tax credits, nine out of 10 low-income families with children are claiming tax credits. Tax credits are transforming the life chances of the poorest people in our society, which the Conservative Government did not care about and did not concern themselves with. We saw an appalling level of family poverty and child poverty during that period. We have lifted 700,000 children out of poverty—a policy that the Conservative party has consistently opposed.
	On foreign prisoners and deportation, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the position in a written statement to the House, he made an oral statement in the House, and he made it clear yesterday that he would return to the House as necessary to ensure that that regrettable state of affairs is addressed—a state of affairs that the Government have addressed, and which had not previously been addressed by any other Government. That is a matter to which the right hon. Lady might give some consideration. No previous Home Secretary was in a position to provide the information because no previous Home Secretary had the records and information available to him. Again, the Conservatives ought to reflect on that before making such criticisms.
	On crime, overall we have seen a significant reduction in key crime statistics over the longer term. The statistics from the British crime survey showed that in the 12 months to September 2005 overall crime was falling, the level of violent crime was relatively stable, all personal crime rates were relatively stable, but domestic burglary was down by 13 per cent. and vehicle thefts were down by 14 per cent. That is an improvement. It is not sufficient; we want still greater progress.
	Again, that improvement is hardly helped by the Conservative party's consistent policy of opposing the very policies that we have proposed to make that happen, opposing greater numbers of police officers on the streets—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."], opposing greater support for those police officers. Opposition Members cry rubbish but the truth is that they have consistently opposed providing the resources to allow those changes to occur. They cannot consistently complain in the House, when they have opposed the very resources that allowed those policies to be implemented.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence in all its forms, and we have passed legislation to that end. One reason why legislation has been introduced is to ensure an improvement in reporting rates. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is an independent body, and it is important for hon. Members, including, I hope, my hon. Friend, who take an interest in that matter to assist in its work by contributing to the consultation on guidelines for sentencing in relation to domestic violence offences. The deadline for contributions is 12 June, and I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

David Howarth: Perhaps I should first put on record that I never lectured in constitutional law, but I did lecture in employment law, which might be more relevant to the fate of the Ministers concerned. [Laughter.]
	May we have a debate on nuclear waste? The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is reporting today, but its remit covered only waste from existing nuclear power stations, not waste from future-build nuclear power stations, which according to the Environmental Audit Committee will produce 400 per cent. more high-level waste than previous nuclear power stations. The Committee is anxious that its report is not misrepresented as solving the nuclear waste problem for the future. I am sure that a debate would help to clarify that.

Edward Garnier: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House at an early opportunity to explain the policy behind the Identity Cards Act 2006? Last weekend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that identity cards would carry health information about individuals. Last October, the Home Secretary expressly said that they would not. Indeed, throughout our discussions on the measure, from after the general election to Royal Assent, the Government's case was that health information would not be carried on identity cards or on the national identity register. It appears that the Home Office is having a little local difficulty, and the Home Secretary needs to come here and sort himself out.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend knows that, when people lose their jobs in the private sector, and especially in manufacturing, it is hardly mentioned in the press, and the Opposition do not raise an eyebrow. However, when a fraction of the jobs lost in manufacturing is lost in the public sector, it becomes a national crisis and Opposition Members get out of their prams. What opportunities exist for a collective whinge for those in the private sector, who lose their jobs daily?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important issue, and I am grateful for his observations about the Government's record on animal welfare. We are proud of the steps that we have taken to continue to protect animals. Equally, it is important that this country is able to go on engaging in scientific research while ensuring that that research is effective and efficient. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must balance the need for effective scientific research against the protection and welfare of animals, and I assure him that we keep that balance under constant review.

Owen Paterson: May I give the Leader of the House some very simple NHS statistics? Two early-stage breast cancer sufferers are receiving Herceptin at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital cost-free from their primary care trust. Those who have Shropshire addresses could receive such care at that hospital if the Shropshire PCT would fund it, buy, because it will not, they are having to raise £47,000 each for the treatment, and there are 12 of them. It cannot be right that people with a Staffordshire address, a Cheshire address or a Welsh address get the drug free from their PCT, while people with a Shropshire address have to find £47,000 for it. My final statistic is that I have written three times to the Secretary of State: on 25 March, 5 April and 19 April. She has not answered once. Will she please come to the House and answer my questions?

Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert
	'(including proposals to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883)'.

Mark Durkan: We covered many matters yesterday on Second Reading. We have tabled amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 6 to clause 1. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may refer certain matters to the Assembly that is to be set up under the Bill, namely, the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the operation of d'Hondt and such other matters as the Secretary of State sees fit.
	The clause makes it clear that suspension does not end with the creation of the Assembly. It provides that the Assembly is to be composed of people who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so there is a clear legal distinction between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Assembly. So far, the Secretary of State has not coloured in exactly which other matters he might see fit to refer to the Assembly. There were various exchanges between Governments and parties in the run-up to the statement made by the two premiers in Armagh, which preceded the Secretary of State's announcement of the Bill last week. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to try to probe further into which other matters the Assembly might consider.
	Elsewhere in the measure, it is made clear what will happen if restoration does not occur by 25 November. The Assembly set up by the legislation will be wound up and the Secretary of State has made it clear that Assembly Members will lose their jobs. We accept that, as we have been told, the Assembly is not a shadow Assembly—so it is not even a shadow of its former self. It should not continue indefinitely. We do not want an endless talking shop of any kind, but the Government are making a mistake if they think that the deadline will worry those who may not be in a hurry to form an inclusive Executive by that date. Talk of closing the book on devolution and talk, such as we heard yesterday, of bringing the curtain down on the process that has been in operation since 1998 could appeal to a party such as the Democratic Unionist party, which still says that its aim is to remove and replace the Belfast agreement.
	The proposals that may or may not exist on joint stewardship in the event of the Assembly being wound up if there is failure by 25 November do not extend to anything that might look like joint authority—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been at pains to state that here last week and this week—so it would seem that perhaps we are talking about some sort of direct rule with knobs on at best. Again, I am not sure whether that will particularly appeal to anyone to whom the deadline is meant to appeal, and I am not sure whether it will scare or frighten anyone whom the deadline is supposed to worry in that sense.
	It would suit those in the DUP in many ways for everything to be wound up at that stage and for attempts to be made in the direction of joint authority to which they can then galvanise opposition and claim success in those attempts and, indeed, in burying the agreement, as they would see it. There is a danger that parties could have an incentive to play it out to failure on 25 November. Indeed, that incentive could also extend not just to the DUP, but to those in Sinn Fein who, for their own reasons, might be quite happy for us to reach a situation where the onus is on the two Governments to produce an alternative after 25 November. Of course, they can then galvanise and criticise when that is not good enough from their perspective either. Of course, they would be happy to blame the collapse by 25 November on the DUP.
	The danger is that, after 25 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly might not be a given, the Assembly created by the Bill might be gone and a worthwhile alternative from the two Government might not be a given and not be available. It might well be that the only given that we will have then is the outcome of the review of public administration—the seven super-councils, the repartition in waiting and the deep Balkanisation of our society—and in those circumstances, parties might well start to turn their attentions to how they build up their powers and bases in those new local government institutions, rather than concentrating on how we deliver the vision for devolution that the people of Northern Ireland endorsed when they voted overwhelmingly for the agreement.

Gregory Campbell: Again, the hon. Gentleman alludes to two distinct things: either a talking shop, which he appears to believe, wrongly, is an option that the DUP wants; or a restitution of the institutions, which is obviously what he wants. Can he open his mind to the fact that this may in fact evolve into something that is neither of those?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having read amendment No. 6, it seems that the hon. Gentleman seeks a negative power for the Assembly to veto Orders in Council. How does he consider that the Assembly will work in terms of positive powers? What positive powers does he think that the Assembly should have and how much budgetary control does he think that it should have?

Lady Hermon: May I put on the record my deep appreciation of the House authorities and, in particular, the Public Bill Office for accepting amendments at very short notice? The Bill was introduced and published only last Thursday. By virtue of the fact that it was introduced so late, amendments had to be late, but I appreciate, most sincerely, the great leniency that has been shown by the Public Bill Office.
	May I also say what a delight it is to see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and also the Secretary of State in their places—for the entire debate, we hope. May I just say to the Secretary of State that I do know that there has been a death in his family? I extend my deepest condolences to him and I am sure that they will be shared by everyone in the House.
	We have a lively debate ahead of us and a number of the amendments that stand in my name are in this first group, under clause 1, "Preparations for restoration of devolved government". I will briefly indicate what the amendments relate to and then speak to them in more detail. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 deal with the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which I wish to see carried out by means of a joint election, with both names on the same ticket.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with the name of the new creature that we discussing. As I indicated yesterday, I find it disturbing that the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister constantly refer to this new creature as the Assembly. In the minds of the people of Northern Ireland, that conjures up the idea that it is the same as the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, it is a very pale shadow of the former Northern Ireland Assembly; it is a talking shop. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 seek to christen it a "Forum" rather than an assembly.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which stand in my name, deal with the election of the Presiding Officer. I take exception to the Secretary of State taking to himself even more power. I know that those concerns are shared by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have not had discussions in the Tea Room about elections, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) will support the taking away of additional, Executive powers from the Secretary of State, which is what is embodied in my amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 deals with the replacement of any Presiding Officer. Again, the Secretary of State is taking the power to replace any Presiding Officer or deputy, or to fill a vacancy. I hope that I will have the support of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for amendment No. 26, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to control proceedings in the Assembly by directions. Amendment No. 27 deals with the privilege of Members of the Legislative Assembly. I admit that it is a probing amendment, but its purpose is to find out why when MLAs take up their posts in the new body and sit again in Stormont, their statements will have limited privilege.
	Perhaps I can deal with the amendments in reverse order. If anything emphasises to the entire House that the new creature will not be the old Assembly, it is paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which amendment No. 27 would remove. The provision sets out the limited privilege that will be attached to statements made by the 108 MLAs. I think that I am right in saying that all Democratic Unionist party Members who sit in the House are also Assembly Members. Indeed, apart from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), all Social Democratic and Labour party Members are Assembly Members. They will be curious to find that the law is being redrafted to reduce what can be said with privilege in the new Assembly.
	The Northern Ireland Act 1998 could be described as the constitution of Northern Ireland because, according to its long title, it is the main piece of legislation for the "government of Northern Ireland". The Secretary of State and Assembly Members will know that according to section 50 of that Act:
	"For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to . . . the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and . . . the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority."
	The 108 MLAs thus have absolute privilege, but paragraph 6 of schedule 1 will take that away. This does not affect me, as the Member for North Down, because I do not sit in the Assembly, but I am genuinely worried about why the 108 Assembly Members who return will find that their privilege has suddenly been reduced.
	According to paragraph 6 of schedule 1:
	"A written or oral statement made by a member in or for the purposes of the Assembly is to be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice."
	Will the Secretary of State or the Minister kindly comment on the impact that the provision might have on any publication of the new Assembly, or, indeed, any media coverage of its proceedings? Why will the absolute privilege attached to Members of the old Northern Ireland Assembly—the proper Assembly—not carry through to the new creature?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the hon. Lady has been talking, I have had the opportunity to read section 50 of the 1998 Act, which is, indeed, widely drawn. What worries me about paragraph 6 of schedule 1 of the Bill is how intent and malice would be proved. Would it might be possible that the measure would put the leader of the Assembly in an invidious position? The leader might become involved in court proceedings to rule on whether something was said with malice.

The Chairman: I should not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address the Chair. In not doing so, he also takes his voice off microphone, which is a complication for the Official Report.

Lady Hermon: I think all contributions, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State, have been helpful.
	I will move on, because I think we ought to—[Interruption.] If I am encouraged to move on quickly by a DUP Member, I will of course invite that Member to contribute to the debate.

Nigel Dodds: I know that the hon. Lady has gone to considerable lengths to prove the nature of the body. Has she looked at the provisions in paragraph 2 of schedule 2 which deals with making the restoration order and, if we so decide in this Assembly, the things that will be carried over to the Northern Ireland Assembly on restoration? In particular, sub-paragraph (8) provides that by virtue of the restoration order, things that have been done here, will be treated as having been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lady Hermon: I hope I do not misrepresent the views expressed, but I take it that the DUP, and certainly its leader, would prefer to select the Presiding Officer since it is they who sit in the Assembly, rather than have a Presiding Officer nominated, appointed and swept into power. That is no criticism of the individual herself, but it is an appointment that has been made, and it will be deemed to take effect under the Bill by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I take it that that is an endorsement of my point.
	If I could just move to amendment No. 26?

Lembit �pik: I begin by speaking to amendment No. 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and is a probing amendment. It is linked to amendment No. 5 in that it deals with the extent to which the Assembly can decide matters for itself. We are curious about the phrase
	in such manner as the Secretary of State may specify.
	Does that mean that the Assembly will be able to choose a Presiding Officer or deputies not of the Secretary of State's choosing if it so wishes, or will the Assembly be able only to confirm the Secretary of State's choices? That is important.
	I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the previous Speaker was universally admired and respectedI see a smile leaking from those on the DUP Benchesand he did not stay long enough, but he has gone now. I pay tribute in advance to Eileen Bell, who I think will be a superb Presiding Officer, but if the Assembly wanted to change that appointmentI hope it would notwould it have the capacity to do so? I hope the Minister will be able to answer that question.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were tabled by the SDLP. Command Paper 3883, as we know, is the Good Friday agreement. I am slightly concerned that the aim behind the amendments might be to ensure that no changes are made to the operation of the Assembly and the Good Friday agreement.
	It is recognised that there have been difficulties in the operation of certain aspects of the agreement. Perhaps the most obvious of those was the use of designations. Who can forget the fiasco of autumn 2001, when members of the Alliance party had to pretend to be Unionists for five minutes in order to facilitate the election of a First and Deputy First Minister? That occurred despite the fact that over 70 per cent. of Assembly Members voted for David Trimble and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to take up those positions. That is fundamentally wrong. If the amendments would prevent a change, they would enshrine some rather bad practice.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman was not present for the entire debate, but one of the arguments against calling the Assembly the Senedd was that people would be confused. That is on the record for everyone to see. There is no question but that the use of the word Assembly in the Bill will cause confusion, as that has already happened in the press. The Government should take a long, hard look at the problem. It may be their political intention to make the body look, feel and sound like an assembly to persuade individuals that the transition is not a great one. I am agnostic about that, but I feel very strongly that the Secretary of State should explain why the Government are willing to countenance confusion between the new creature and the original body that was set up and called the Assembly.
	I support amendment No. 26. This morning, the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform published its 18th report, which considered the Bill. It drew attention to paragraph 4 of schedule 1 and the power that it gives the Secretary of State to determine the conduct of the Assembly's proceedings:
	These directions may contain provisions of a substantive and not just a procedural nature. For example, they may include requirements as to the majority required for election. Although the bill does not prescribe what, if any, directions must be given in this respect, paragraph 4(3) and (4) of schedule 1 specifies that a particular use of the power may be to require provision corresponding to sections 16 and 18 of the Northern Ireland act 1998, which set out the majorities required in elections, and the formula for filling ministerial offices, under that Act.
	It concludes:
	We draw to the attention of the House the significance of the power to give directions so that Ministers may, if the House thinks fit, be asked for a fuller explanation of the intended use.
	We would like the Secretary of State to comment on what the power will be used for. We are concerned that he has taken the power upon himself, and will not allow the Assembly to decide these matters for itselfa point that we made, albeit less emphatically, in amendment No. 4. Why can the Assembly not decide those matters for itself? The matter has invited comment from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, so I hope that the Secretary of State can provide a cohesive reply.
	I found amendment No. 7 entertaining, as it deals with parliamentary privilege, and makes the preposterous assumption that one can prove an exemption for malice. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why on earth the Bill includes such a fatuous provision.

Patrick Cormack: Of course!

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to build consensus, which is what the whole process is about. As someone elected to an English constituency, perhaps I am able to raise this question: does he not agree that the Bill should be about giving more trust to the elected Members of the Assembly? Might not it be possible for the Secretary of State to consider allowing some of the Bill's more pernicious provisionssuch as those to do with Standing Orders and how the leader of the Assembly is electedto be amended by them?

Lembit �pik: That is a fair point. I would go so far as to say that Members of the reconstituted Assembly might be justified in feeling slightly patronised. They are being expected to work towards achieving an operational Assembly, but they are not going to be able to get actively involved in the decision-making loop for legislation that will be going through when the Assembly is operating.
	The Government would not lose anything by accepting the amendment. The hon. Member for Foyle has underlined the fact that there has been some movement. A common-sense position has been achieved, with which all the parties from Northern Ireland represented in this Chamber seem to agree.
	I hope that the Secretary of State does not say that Sinn Fein has a veto on the proposal, as that would be very unhelpful. I am sure that he would accept that the fact that the SDLP, the UUP and the DUP all agree that the proposal is a good ideasubject to some consultation with the Alliance, Sinn Fein and othersis a good reason to consider accepting it. Anything else would suggest that the Assembly was being set up to do what he wants, and that it will not be allowed to do what it and the people of Northern Ireland wantthat is, to make important decisions and have an input into the feedback loop.
	The Minister of State has placed great store in having a constructive dialogue about how we can do things better than we do under the Order in Council process. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, after he has reflected on the fact that we seem to have moved from a position where there was no support for the amendment to one where the key players in the debate and in Northern Ireland politics all agree that it would be sensible.

Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. I hope that, as the Secretary of State has been considering these matters, he will have been swayed by the arguments that have been presented from both sides of the House on this matter.
	A number of issues were raised during this short debate that bring two words to mind: mountains and molehills. We are at times inclined to get into the minutiae to such an extent that we lose track of the key issues.
	Let me deal with the issue of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is not a new issue; we faced it in 1998. We are talking about a transitional Assembly that will move from its present structures and powers towards a creation that we hope will eventually have full executive authority. The Ulster Unionist party did not oppose such a metamorphosis in 1998, and I am surprised that it is opposing it today. The words used to describe the bodybe it assembly or forumare pretty meaningless in reality. It is the Assembly. It is not the Northern Ireland Assembly as set up under the 1998 legislation. It has a specific role that would take it seamlessly from its existence under this Bill to an existence that we hope it will have under an amended version of the 1998 Act, given that that legislation will have to be amended.
	Indeed, the seamless transition is detailed in the Bill, in that certain powers automatically given to this Assembly will be given, without any further action, to the new Assembly that follows itfor instance, in relation to the Presiding Officer's position, the enrolment process for Assembly Members and their designation, and decisions taken in relation to the First and Deputy First Minister and other executive positions. By being taken by this body, those powers will automatically get taken by the new Northern Ireland Assembly under, I hope, an amended 1998 Act. We are talking about a transitional Assembly, and I suppose that putting the word transitional in the title might have made its intention and purpose clearer.
	I do not think that the terms used in the Bill do great violence to the overall position and future of Northern Ireland. Certainly, I am not greatly exercised about what the body is called. We all know what it is intended to do, and what its purpose is to be. I simply hope that the public will be more concerned with what the Assembly does than with what it is called. If the Members of that Assembly do a job that gets the favour of the community in Northern Ireland, they will worry little whether it might be confused with some other body that has been in suspension for a long period.

Peter Robinson: Therefore, under it, both the publication and the person to whom the remarks are attributed are covered by full privilege; however, the Bill establishes that they will not be so covered. Privilege will be qualified, in that such a statement must have been made without malice; alternatively, it must be impossible to prove that it has been made with malice.
	There are two further issues on which I want to comment, the first of which is the powers of the Secretary of State. I said to the hon. Member for North Down in the House yesterday that I concurred with many of her misgivings about the storing up of more and more powerindeed, unfettered powerin the Secretary of State. Effectively, in many instances he can do what he thinks fit, which is clearly a cause for concern. However, the difficulty is that although the hon. Lady has taken away such responsibilities from the Secretary of State through her amendment, she has given them to no one else.
	That takes us back to the question of why the Secretary of State is setting up the Assembly, rather than the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had he detailed all such responsibilities and designated them to various individuals, or groups of individuals, in effect, he would have been amending the entire 1998 Act. I would not have worried greatly about amending the 1998 Act, but I suspect that there are some people sitting behind the Minister who would not be too keen on doing so.
	Of course, the reality is that the jobs that the Secretary of State has been given the power to perform under the Bill have to be performed. If we are to remove his responsibility for performing them, we must also amend the Bill to give that responsibility to the Assembly or someone else. That is the deficiency in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, but I concur with her view that the Secretary of State is taking far too much on to himself. It would show greater faith in the elected representatives of Northern Ireland if he vested some of that responsibility in the Assembly itself.
	I turn finally to the election of the Presiding Officer. The wording in paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 is clumsy and unusual, even if it is not such that I would oppose it outright. I do not like the idea of somebody appointed by a Secretary of State being
	deemed to have been elected.
	The Secretary of State is not the Northern Ireland electoratehe does not have the power to elect anybody in Northern Ireland. He can appoint, and I would have been quite content for him to make the appointment, and for it to stand until the Northern Ireland Assembly itself elected someone. Paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 states:
	The person who is presiding officer of the Assembly immediately before the effective date
	the Secretary of State's appointee
	shall be deemed to have been elected as Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 39(1) of the 1998 Act.
	I hope that that will not be an issue. I would far rather that the Assembly met and elected its own Presiding Officer or Speaker. That would be an indication of the maturity of the Assembly and its ability to reach agreement. Indeed, if it could not reach agreement on such issues, one must question whether it would reach agreement on some of the greater issues that it will face. I hope that it does not become an issue, but I do not like the idea that the Secretary of State can be deemed to have elected a Presiding Officer for the Assembly. In reality, the person concerned will be the Secretary of State's appointee and, with due respect to the Secretary of State, will have less authority as an appointee than if elected by the Assembly as its Speaker.
	I hope that the Assembly will elect a Speaker, but I am concerned by the terminology in the legislation. It suggests that the Secretary of State can allow the Assembly to elect its Speaker, but it does not have the power to do so until such time as it reverts to Northern Ireland Assembly mode. Under the present mode, it will not have the power through this legislation or under the draft standing orderssome of us at least have seen themto elect a Speaker.

Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend is right. He will remember that, when we met with the Secretary of State before the appointment was made, we asked whether he would consult the political parties before he decided. He made it clear that there would not be any consultation and that was borne out by the fact that the person who appears to have been most surprised by the appointment of Eileen Bell as the Presiding Officer was the leader of her party. It was not the first time that he had been surprised to discover that an appointment had been made. None of that should detract from the credibility of the individual involved. I wish Eileen Bell well, and my colleagues and I have no intention of making life difficult for herI am sure that she will be pleased to hear that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already personally wished her well. I trust that she will have deputies who will give her the necessary support. The position would, however, have greater authority if it were elected by the Assembly.
	I would like the Secretary of State to make it clear that, although the legislation says that he may authorise the Assembly to elect a Presiding Officer, he will do so and allow the position greater authority. Otherwise we will be in the ludicrous position of the Assembly Members barely being able to breathe without the permission of the Secretary of State, which would make it something less than a talking shop. He must let go of the leash and allow the Assembly to take on more and more responsibility. That is the least that he can do.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand that these matters are relevant to the debate, but I do not think that we ought to have lengthy reruns of things that have happened in the past.

William McCrea: We will not carry out a funeral procession today because the funeral for the Belfast agreement was held at the time of the last election. No one is suggesting that the body will be the new Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will be an Assembly of Members who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a waste of the House's time to try to put another name on the Assembly because only Assembly Members will be invited to it, so I will not spend any more time on that point.
	The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the 1998 Act when she talked about bringing the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers together. I know the motives behind the Ulster Unionists' position on that, but, once again, we have got to move on. If there is one thing that the hon. Lady should know, it is that the people of Northern Ireland made a decision about the Belfast agreement at the last election. With the greatest respect, no one can resuscitate or revive the agreement because the people, through the ballot box, have moved on.
	Just because a decision was taken years ago, are we going to live with the failures of the past? Do we not want a brighter and saner future for our people by moving away from putting criminals and terrorists into government and towards a situation in which the only credential for a person to hold ministerial office is democracy and democracy alone? That is why I ask the House to allow those who were elected as Assembly Members to meet and discuss. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will take account of not only Assembly Members' decisions, but the wise counsel given by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he asked the Secretary of State to hold back on the likes of the offensive decisions on the review of public administration, at least until the November deadline has arrived. The House and the Secretary of State would do well to heed such wise counsel.

Laurence Robertson: I will be brief because we have had a long debate on the amendments, probably because they are wide ranging. I do not especially want to join in the debate on what the name for the new Assembly should be. There is a little confusion about what the Bill does, and it has sometimes been difficult to explain that to people, who have responded by saying, Oh, so you're setting up a shadow Assembly, and I have replied that it is not quite like that. Although the situation is difficult, I do not want to take up the Committee's time on that issue.
	As other hon. Members said, it is important that the Assembly deals with real issues. That will be an incentive to make it work, so that the real Assemblyor the Northern Ireland Assembly, as I should call itcan be set up and full devolution can be realised. If it ends up as a talking shop, which I very much hope it will not, we will not have served the cause of devolution well.
	I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said. In particular, it is important that we put on hold as many statutory instruments as possible until the Assembly is up and running and fully able to consider those matters. We recently considered water rates and local government, and we are about to consider education. Those are big issues. I do not want to get to the point in November, or, I hope, before then, when devolution is fully triggered, to find that the Assembly is landed with a load of legislation of which it does not approve. That would not be a helpful start.
	I appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the Assembly to have something left to do. That is important. However, it is wrong for this House to decide such important matters for the 1.7 million people who live in Northern Ireland. I do my best from the Dispatch Box and in Committee, but I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the knowledge that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have. We all do our best, but we cannot have the same expertise as they have.
	On privilege in the Assembly, again, I am not a lawyer, but I would find it odd if the word malice remains as a qualification in paragraph 6 of schedule 1. I realise that malice is an important factor in the law on murder, for example, but we are talking about a very different matter when it comes to defamation. To prove that someone said something with malice would be very difficult. I do not think that it should remain in the paragraph.
	We would have preferred the Assembly to elect the Presiding Officer, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He or she would command greater authority, and it would also be fairer for the Assembly and the people who serve in that office.
	On the Secretary of State's powers to set the proceedings of the Assembly, it would have been useful for the Bill to include after consultation with the Presiding Officer. That might have been better, but probably only if the Presiding Officer had been elected by the Assembly, rather than appointed by the Secretary of State, to avoid an incestuous relationship.
	We have some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State is taking on extra powers. We seem to be considering so much legislation. Some of it is definitive, but then we come to a clause that says, The Secretary of State can do this, that and the other, and think, Why bother sitting through all the deliberations if he can do that? I am fearful of that, because it is wrong to vest so much power in any one person. I have no objection to this particular Secretary of State, but it would lead to more statutory instruments, which we all want to avoid. He should think about the powers that he is taking and whether they are going to lead to more statutory instruments. I think we would agree that that would not be a good thing. However, it is a temporary measure, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.
	We wish the Bill well and look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say in reply to a number of good points raised.

Lembit �pik: I am encouraged by the Secretary of State's comments. Given his form on devolution in Wales, I do not doubt his intentions. However, he is asking us to trust his commitment to devolution. Surely, the principle of amendment No. 6 should sit comfortably with his own desire to involve the Assembly in decision making? Is he willing to make a commitment to introduce, perhaps on Report or in another place, a formal system that would ensure that the Assembly, which starts on 15 May, plays a role in the decision-making process in Orders in Council? I do not see why he should have a problem with enshrining that in legislation.

Patrick Cormack: May I try to pin the Secretary of State down on the RPA? Is he absolutely fixed on the seven new local authorities, or can that number be revised by the Assembly?

Lady Hermon: I have a broad smile on my face, because the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Presiding Officer will be able to bring together in the same room the Whips from the DUP, Sinn Fein, the UUP and other parties in the Assembly.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady will know better than I do, because she was there at the time, that I am proceeding much as we did in 1998 in terms of the appointment of a Presiding Officer, the drawing up of Standing Orders, and so on. We will discuss the other points that she raised later.
	I believe that my powers in this regard are justifiable and necessary. However, we will stay faithful to the procedures of the 1998 Act in the devolved Assembly where we can. That, I hope, comes out in the draft standing orders that we have made available. In particular, the selection of the Executive will follow closely the pattern of the 1998 Act. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has looked at the powers in the Bill, including those that the hon. Member for North Down has questioned. It concluded that they are appropriate in the context of the Bill, but suggested that it would be helpful to have further explanations of the way in which they are to be used. I hope that the details that I am providing, particularly the draft standing orders that we have produced, will provide the necessary reassurance.
	The thrust of the Bill is in line with the sense of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which the hon. Member for Foyle tabled. The measure is precisely about restoring the institutions that the Good Friday agreement established. The principle of fidelity to what was agreed in 1998 is important to SDLP MembersI agree with thembut I hope that they agree that the amendment does not add anything of substance. I hope that, having made their points and got those reassurances from me, they will not press the amendments.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for Foyle has strong concerns for good reasons and I therefore also stress that the talks will be all party and inclusive. I have made that point previously and I repeat it now. Whatever has or has not happened in the past, for whatever reason, it is not possible to proceed through side deals. Talks must be on an all-party basis.
	Amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) tabled, proposes that before restoration, the Assembly should be given a power of veto over legislation that is the preserve of the House. I do not believe that that is appropriate. As was said yesterday, during direct rule, which I do not want to continue for one day longer than necessary, we are accountable here for the good government of Northern Ireland and we should not tie ourselves to following the will of another body.
	Nothing would give me greater pleasure than the restoration of the Assembly, with its Members again taking responsibility for transferred matters. However, I repeat that, when the Assembly, on a cross-community basis, expresses views about a specific order or policy, they will be taken into account. That is different from giving a suspended Assembly a power of veto over Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Foyle asked about the Secretary of State being able to refer matters to a Business Committee. If there is a consensus on the Business Committee, it can proceed without my getting involved. The last thing I want to do is get involved in the Assembly's internal affairs. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for North Down about seating arrangements and so on. I am happy to leave such matters to the parties and the Business Committee. I do not want to get involved in where people will sit in the Assembly. It was a matter of contention in the past and, from what I can tell from discussions with all the parties so far, what needs to happen is pretty clear, and that will happen.

Peter Hain: The term all-party talks means exactly that. No party can exercise a veto, either by not appearing at the talks or by seeking to exercise a veto in some other way. If a party chooses to exclude itself, that is that party's decision.
	On amendment No. 27, I understand the points that the hon. Member for North Down made about defamation and privilege, and I want to address them. I believe that it is right that the Bill should confer qualified privilege on proceedings in the Assembly in its present mode. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East quite properly pointed out to the hon. Lady, that arrangement mirrors the situation that applied in 1998. I hope that it will encourage debate that is free and frank, while discouraging accusations of a malicious nature.
	I should like to go into this matter in some detail, in order to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down. She asked why the proceedings in the Assembly in the form envisaged to 24 Novemberor to restoration, if that takes place before thenwere to be given a lesser degree of privilege in regard to defamation than those of the devolved Assembly. The proceedings of the old, fully fledgedas it wereAssembly enjoyed absolute privilege. In this Assembly, privilege is qualified, in a similar way to that in which it was qualified at the preliminary stage last time. That privilege will not protect the maker of defamatory statements if there is proof of malice on his or her part. The Bill gives the same degree of privilege as that accorded to the transitional Assembly in 1998it follows exactly the same formula. That was our precedent. Indeed, it was the precedent for much of what we have put into the Bill.
	Absolute privilege tends to be conferred only on fully functioning legislatures. Conferring qualified privilege under the Bill is therefore appropriate and reflects the fact that the Assembly has not been fully restored. At a time when there are serious party differencesalthough we are seeking to narrow themit does not seem right to give freedom from malicious defamatory statements.
	The Bill does not alter the position of the media in relation to privilege. It might assist the House if I point out that the Bill allows for statements in the Assembly to be privileged, excluding those made with malice, whether made by Assembly Members or by those who fairly and accurately report them in the media.
	On the name of the Assembly, I cannot accept that it should be known as anything other than the Assembly. As the hon. Members for North Down and for Montgomeryshire have pointed out, the Assembly is composed of all those who have been elected to the full Assembly and who will constitute it on restoration. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East in that respect. One of the key functions of the Assembly is the selection of an Executive. Once that function has been discharged, the way will be open for the restoration of all the devolved institutions and the resumption of the full legislative and other powers of the fully restored Assembly. The proposals by the hon. Member for North Down in amendments Nos. 21 to 23 that it should be known as the Forum would be misleading, although I know that that is not her intention. I hope that she will not press her amendments to a vote.
	To conclude, Mrs. HealI am proud, as a Welsh MP, that a proud Welsh woman is in the chair, whose husband is a proud member of my local rugby club[Laughter.] I think that we had better call it a day at that
	I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members who have raised important points that the new Assembly, which is a difficult task and a fragile flower, is on its way, I believe, to restoration of the institutions. We need to do that by consensus. We have put in the structures with a lot of care and thought, modelled in many respects on what happened in 1998, giving the Assembly the opportunity to take full charge of its affairs, to decide what it wants, to vote on what it wants and to discuss what it wants. In that transition, a default position remains in my hands as Secretary of State to make sure that it is able to proceed in that consensual way, which I hope that it does. I hope that the whole House will back the Bill, and that those who tabled the amendments will, on hearing my reassurances, withdraw them.

Mark Durkan: In respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, the Secretary of State has indicated that the Government's purpose in the Bill, and the whole point of the exercise, is to give effect to re-establishing the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, he feels that the amendments add nothing. In introducing them, I said that they were probing amendments to register that point, which was certainly made to us in meetings with the British and Irish Governments and registered strongly by the Taoiseach not only in his joint statement with the Prime Minister on 2 March but on several other occasions. I am glad that our amendments have brought such an explicit statement from the Secretary of State. The Minister with responsibility for political development, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State, will be glad to hear that I can take yes for an answer. On that basis, we will not press the amendments to a vote.
	Among the various comments on amendments Nos. 7 and 8, there was some misunderstanding of their purpose. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not in his place, but I point out to him that I did not at any stage say that I believed that the DUP's only intent was to go into the Assembly to wreck it. How could I say that, in circumstances in which it is clear to all of us that this new creature is very much along the lines that the DUP specifically advocated? If anything, on the basis of his contribution yesterday, the DUP's intention would not be to bring down this new creature but to prolong its existence. Clearly, subsequent amendments that they have tabled would do away with the 25 November deadline. He has therefore misapprehended my concern.
	In relation to the position of the DUP, I believe that, contrary to 25 November and the notion of a proposed alternative representing a threat to the DUP, in the overall political scheme, the DUP might well be comfortable in those circumstances. It can then make a different case that closing the book on devolution is effectively closing the book on devolution as per the agreement. Drawing down the curtain, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, on the process since 1998those were the Secretary of State's wordscan quickly be converted by the DUP to drawing down the curtain on the Good Friday agreement. As Governments search for an alternative that they do not yet have, the DUP will say, We always advocated an alternative. The Governments are proposing an alternative that is not agreed; we want an alternative that is agreed. A lot of people in Northern Ireland, including some nationalists, naively believe that the DUP is somehow under the cosh in respect of 25 November and some other alternative, but I do not believe that the DUP appears particularly frightened by that prospect. I also put it on record that Sinn Fein might have an interest in seeing a crash at that stage, as long as it can blame it on the DUP.
	We wanted the Assembly to be able to consider possible solutions. If it seems that we are facing total crash and burn, and if there are proposals that could give life to implementation of the Good Friday agreement, the Assembly should be able to consider those proposals. It would do so on an agreed and an inclusive basis, with no side deals or anything else of that kind.I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that there would be no side deals in the negotiations, although he will probably become tired of being continually asked to give assurances in that regard. I accept his assurance and hope that it will extend to all levels of government.
	As long ago as 1998, we were negotiating the Good Friday agreement in Castle buildings a few weeks away from Good Friday, grappling with the minutiae of the proposals for strands 1, 2 and 3. Two parties were supposedly negotiating with the others, and supposedly negotiating with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The right hon. Gentleman, then the Minister responsible for political development, was chairing the strand 1 talks while negotiating with Senator George Mitchell, who was chairing the talks overall. Those two parties, the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, received a fax from Downing street giving an outline of what the strand 1 outcome should be.
	The SDLP made it clear, in fairly stark terms, that we were not negotiating with a fax machine, whether it was in Downing street or anywhere else. If the Prime Minister wanted to contribute to the negotiations, he should come to Castle buildings and join in the talks with all the parties and with the Irish Government. Those who were chairing the talks, including the political development Minister, did not know about the faxes from Downing street until we told them.
	I hope that that answers the insinuation from some people that the SDLP has not always stood for inclusion, and has been prepared to do deals on its own or in its own way. We have never done that. We are absolutely clear about the integrity of the principle of inclusion, which is why we wrote it into the agreement, ensuring the inclusion of people who opposed the agreement. We always maintained at the time that the Good Friday agreement and its institutions, as they worked and grew, would be capable of involving in partnership and co-operation not just Unionists and nationalists, not just republicans and loyalists, but those who voted yes and those who voted no. We did not want a new permanent divide in Northern Ireland's political life.
	I believe that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement are capable of sustaining such partnership and co-operation. That is whythis answers the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)I do not accept that changes to the agreement are a necessary precondition for restoration. After all, if the suspension had never happened in the first place and if the DUP, with the mandate that it secured, had entered unsuspended institutions, the DUP would have taken office in those institutions. It would then have used its strength in those institutions, and in the context of a formal review of the agreement, to oversee some of the changes that it seeks. It would find thatas, in fact, its members knowmany of us have proposed changes in the workings of the agreement to improve it, at a number of levels and a number of ways. We have even proposed changes in the 1998 Act, because many changes could be made to the Act without denting the agreement.
	We do not wish to divide the Committee on amendment No. 7. I shall deal with amendment No. 6 shortly. As for the other amendments, I understand the point that has been made about the Presiding Officer. We feel that it might seem petty, and might be misrepresented and misunderstood, if we created a scramble over the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the current circumstances. People might think that we had something against Eileen Bell, which we do not.
	It is interesting that Eileen Bell has been appointed Speaker and Eileen Paisley has been appointed to the House of Lords. Given the common assumption that things happen in threes, Eileens up and down the country are probably waiting with bated breath for some wonderful appointments to come their way.
	We will certainly work with Eileen Bell as Speaker. In the circumstances, it is probably better to avoid any unseemly stand-off in regard to the Presiding Officer in the early days of this new creature. As someone who comes from Derry, and who is looking across the Floor at someone who clearly comes from Londonderry, I am not going to get into the issue of what we should call the Assembly; the most important thing is what we do in it.
	As many Members have said, amendment No. 6 is in many ways a modest proposal. It is a modest test of the truth of the Secretary of State's assurance that he wants Assembly Members to have responsibility; indeed, he has sometimes said that he wants them to have a powerful influence. What is wrong, therefore, with giving the Assembly the power merely of negative resolution over Orders in Council on a cross-community basis? It is not a veto in the pocket of any one party or community, so it could not be abused. The Secretary of State doubted whether there would be cross-party support for providing such a power. I agree that there would not have been cross-party support for a power of affirmative resolution, which would have given a veto to one party or community, but I cannot see what objection even Sinn Fein would have to proving the power of negative resolution on a cross-community basis. If we are meant to participate in this Assembly in anticipation of taking on powers and doing good things, surely we want the ability stop some of the bad proposals coming through via Orders in Council. As we look toward achieving restoration, what is wrong with our being given the power, on a cross-community basis, to put a stop to the gallop of direct rule via Orders in Council?
	The Secretary of State said that that cannot be done because such matters are for Parliament to decide and cannot be decided by anybody else. Yet we are told constantly that Parliament does not want to legislate on these matters via Orders in Councilthat it wants them to be properly the business of people in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State tells us that he will not allow us to oppose Orders in Council by way of cross-community support, yet he cites that issue as the very reason why he will advise Parliament against giving us that power.
	The Secretary of State says, We cannot allow anybody else to decide on issues that are a matter for Parliament. I do not like to remind him and his Ministers of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but it comes to mind. We were told that the Government and, through them, this Parliament, were honour-boundhideboundto introduce legislation that in fact, nobody liked, agreed with or could justify to victims. We were told that there would be dire consequences if it was not passed, but we were not told what they would be, what the threat was or where it came from. The Bill was withdrawnand the sky still has not fallen in. We were told that an ulterior entity had a hold and a prior say that bound this Parliament and the Government. In the light of that, I do not regard the Secretary of State's argument as very strong.

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out 'before 25th November 2006'.

Lady Hermon: As there are parties who want to construe the DUP as having ulterior motives, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman took this opportunity to put on record that changing the date is not because the DUP wants to maintain a talking shop on the hill at Stormont.

Nigel Dodds: I am happy to say once again, as most of my hon. Friends said yesterday on Second Reading, that of course we are not in the business of trying to create or maintain a talking shop. Indeed, if amendment No. 6 is pushed to a Division, we shall go into the Lobby to support it. We have always wanted the Assembly that is to be created to have the maximum authority and power and there have been some useful suggestions for making direct rule more accountable in the interim period. That would be sensible and I think that view is shared by parties in Northern Ireland.
	We want to take account of the reality spelled out yesterday. When we reach the last week of November, the IRA and Sinn Fein may not have done everything necessary to make them acceptable as members of a Northern Ireland Executive. Let us be frank. Given the findings of the Independent Monitoring Commission report and the current circumstances, it will require a major step change in the provisionals' current attitude to criminality and other things that disqualify them from office to enable them to meet that deadlinealthough who knows what might happen? My party leader has already told us that he believes in miracles. Given his theological position, no one should be surprised at that statement. I believe in miracles, tooI share many of my right hon. Friend's theological positions as well as his political one.
	The provisional movement has let us down many times in the past, however, and it has a fair way to go to convince people that it now has a purely democratic and peaceful methodology. It also has a considerable way to go on policing, as we all know. In the Secretary of State's comments in this place and outside over the past few days, he has referred to policing only in the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers. However, as I said in my contribution to the British-Irish interparliamentary body in Killarney, it is essential to recognise that for members of any party to exercise power as Ministers in any part of the United Kingdom it is extremely important not only that they support the police but that they urge their supporters and the community at large to give information to the police. They should not be half-hearted or equivocal about that matter. That extremely important issue cannot be ducked, set aside or ignored. So those in the provisional movement must deal with lots of issues. They are the ones who are holding up progress and who apparently stand in the way of the restoration of the Executivenot the DUP or the Unionist population.
	Amendment No. 14 would add a requirement to clause 2 that must be met before the Assembly can be restored. A number of conditions are set down in the Bill that must be met before a restoration order can be made, but amendment No. 14 would have the effect of adding the condition that the IMC must have reported that
	no paramilitary, criminal or other illegal activity is being carried out by or on behalf of the Provisional IRA.
	Of course, we all know, given the political reality of the situation, what the circumstances must be, but as well as understanding that, it is important that the Bill refers to the outstanding issue of the day, which must be dealt with before the Executive can be restored. It is not just simply a matter of the parties getting together to elect a First Minister and appointing other Ministers; it is the central issue: whether or not Sinn Fein and the IRA have committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that the Bill should refer to that condition, as well as it just being understood as a political necessity. That is the purpose of putting that condition in the Bill.
	I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate on this group of amendments, he will seriously consider the matters that we have proposedI emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friendsin the sense that we want to see this process work. We want to see it deliver. We want to see the restoration of devolution, but we want to see it restored in the right circumstances and in the right conditions.
	We do not believe in the use of an arbitrary deadline set down by the Government that may not be met, not as a result of any unwillingness on the part of Unionists or any other democratic party to play their role in devolution, but because of the failure of the republican movement to measure up to what needs to be done. It would be entirely wrong then to see the whole edifice of devolution crash down and for the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in those circumstances. I believe that it is absolutely essential that we should try to maintain the momentum and to try to restore to Northern Ireland the maximum degree of devolution that can be possibly attained in those circumstances.

Lembit �pik: I am a little surprised by what I think that the hon. Gentleman just said. He said that he would support the removal of the deadlines, if that was pushed to a vote. I am not quite sure why he would do that, because, although I am pretty sceptical about the Government's willingness to hold to a deadline, I am absolutely certain that the absence of a deadline would guarantee that we will live with this halfway house of an Assembly for the rest of our natural lives.

Alasdair McDonnell: I intend to be brief. I am not quite as vociferous, or windy, as some of my colleagues and hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber.
	Clause 2 provides that if three conditions are met the Secretary of State will make an order of restoration. The conditions are that a First Minister and Deputy First Minister are elected, that persons are nominated as Ministers, and that each of them takes a pledge of office. I am deeply worried about amendment No. 10, because it would make the Assembly open-ended. The Assembly should not be open-ended because that would undermine the concentrated effort that is required to get devolution back in place.
	I note that DUP colleagues have claimed that the Bill means that the 1998 agreement is dead. That is an exaggerated notion of their mandate. We all have mandates and we can all count numbers, but the place to exercise the mandate and count the numbers is on the Floor of the Assembly when it is reconvened.
	We oppose any aspect or concept of a shadow powerless Assembly, because that could last for ever. The deadline is an essential backstop position, which concentrates minds and gets things done.
	I fear that amendment No. 1 would set the precondition for restoration whereby Westminster has to legislate for changes to get the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister elected and an Executive formed. There is nothing wrong with the terms and the details that we worked out in 1998; nor was there anything wrong with the agreement reached in 1998. What was wrong was that a number of the parties failed to honour and implement their responsibilities in 1998 and subsequently. I shall not point fingers. Everyone knows who the wrecking parties were, and it was not the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists. Frankly, the problem had nothing to do with the institutions, the regulations, the Standing Orders and the concepts. Rather, it was the outright refusal by the provos to destroy their weapons. To some extent, that was supplemented, aided and abetted by the refusal by some Unionist politicians to share power.
	It would be a profound mistake to make changes to the agreement, or the 1998 Act that flowed from the agreement, a precondition for restoration. Of course, improvements can be made to the working institutions. Improvements can always be made and development can always take place. We gave a long list of improvements that we wanted to see at the conference at Leeds castle two years ago. All of them were consistent with the Good Friday agreement. However, such matters need to be worked out on the Floor of the Assembly or on the margins of Assembly meetings, and between the parties involved. I am worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who has always been a good friend and a good supporter of peace and progress in Northern Ireland, has taken up the position set out in amendment No. 1. However, we will have a chance to discuss that later.
	I am also deeply concerned about amendment No. 14. Frankly, for the reasons that I outlined, it is unnecessary and irrelevant. The terms will not have been met if we are depending on the IMC. We do not need to hang ourselves on the amendment. I outlined the terms for electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, and for each of them taking the pledge. It appears that the DUP cannot trust itself and will not participate, but we cannot meet the primary conditions of clause 2 without its support. So why do we need an amendment, as a belt-and-braces operation, to ensure that if one of them strays a wee bit, he is pulled back? It is a sort of choke lead.
	The DUP is trying to pass the buck for taking up its position. If it has issues with which it wants to deal, let us do that face on, eyeball to eyeball, and, in a gentlemanly fashion, sort them out. We do not need the amendment. Again, the substance of it should be dealt with on the Floor of the Assembly. The amendment makes unreasonable demands and tries to remove the independence of the IMC, an independent body, and suck it in as a partisan political player. We are the political players. Let us sort out the issues.
	The amendment also places a loaded gun, so to speak, in the hands of a handful of rogue provos in various places around the country, with the result that half a dozen people can prevent any progress from being made by carrying out systematic disruption that causes the IMC to report negatively on one small case. I do not wish to delay the Committee further. My colleagues and I are opposed to the amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.

David Hanson: To return first to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), such changes will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House; I hope that that is helpful. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), the Assembly can deal with any relevant related matters once it is up and running and has Executive functions, because such functions will relate to matters pertaining to the Assembly's areas of responsibility.
	I point out to all four Members who raised issues relating to clause 3 that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place has examined it. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute knows, the Committee takes a keen interest in these matters, so if we tried to pull a fast oneas the colloquial phrase has itit would notice. The Committee's report, available today, points out that the powers in the clause are acceptable, and that another place accepts the principle behind it and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny provided for in clause 4, in accordance with the Committee's views on such powers.
	I hope that, in the light of those points, I have reassured the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Argyll and Bute and for Belfast, North. I look forward to their support for the clause.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: Since I have already put on the record my deep distaste and dislike for, and my disapproval of, giving unfettered powers to the Secretary of State through this Bill, it is not my wish to move amendment No. 19.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Lembit �pik: I think that it is to do with schedule 3. I am sorry, Mrs. Heal, to detain the Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for putting me right.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.

Sylvia Heal: Order. I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for speaking to both schedule 2 and, indeed, schedule 3. I assure him that, when the Assembly is fully restoredI emphasise the words fully restoredwith an Executive, a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and its full legislative powers, it can obviously have locus in any matter to do with its responsibilities and it can pass any matter that it wishes. I cannot fetter that potential legislative Assembly in the future by orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or I pass now. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and that, with that, he will accept schedule 3.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not want to build up hopes among colleagues that there may a way of delivering their ambitions by short-circuiting the legislative process. I do not want to give any false hope that we could expedite the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Commons Bill. I said that the Government were sympathetic to the objective and that we would look for a suitable vehicle. However, such an opportunity may not be forthcoming. I am happy to look at the issue and explore it with colleagues because, as I said, we are sympathetic to their objective of enabling the Freemen of Beverley and others like them to change their rights of succession if they wish to do so.
	With that assurance, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness on raising an issue of great importance to Guilds of Freemen around the country. In doing so, he has provided the House with a flavour of the history and traditions of one of our oldest institutions. I sincerely hope that progress can be made. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen who have pressed the issue, both in this debate and in a private Member's Bill, will do all that they can to ensure that their endeavours are successful.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Six o'clock.
	CORRECTION
	26 April 2006: In column 602, final paragraph, sentence beginning Yes, PIRA and RIRA are dangerous outfits, delete PIRA, insert CIRA.